They’re suggesting a plan for what they call golf
handicaps. That’s basically a system of helping regular losers, and
handicapping regular winners; a system designed to prevent the same boat from
winning all the time and discouraging other entrants.
This is what John Collins has to say about it on
the U.S. Sailing website:
Performance handicapping (PHRF) obviously works
best when there is a small handicap range in each class. That is fine if you
have many boats. If, however, you have few boats with sailors of wide-ranging
abilities, and boats with a wide range of speeds, the racing will be dominated
by one or two boats. This leads to unhappiness.
A possible remedy, at the local club level, is to
institute golf handicapping. PHRF golf handicapping works just the way that
golf handicapping works. The PHRF handicap is adjusted after each race, or
regatta, based on the race performance. This should only be attempted in small
fleets. It should not be used for large regattas or for large fleets sailing in
several areas.
The way it works is to pick a reference boat, say
the boat that corrected out 40 percent of the way down the fleet. Then figure
out the seconds per mile that the other boats either beat this boat by, or lost
to it. Take a small fraction of this delta, say 10 percent, and lower the
faster boats’ handicaps by this amount and raise the slower boats’.
By taking a small percentage you do not make
radical changes to a boat’s handicap. If the boat corrected significantly
faster or slower than the reference boat, say by 50 seconds per mile, do
nothing with these boats. There has to be a reason for this large delta like good
or bad luck. You don’t want to contaminate your adjustments with such races.
The golf handicap scheme is very simple to apply at
the local level. It can help a small fleet. Over time it will tend to even
things out. It will still allow the better sailor to win overall.
Ø See more at: http://www.ussailing.org/racing/offshore-big-boats/phrf/golf-handicaps/#sthash.Ochdb4xX.dpuf
Today’s Thought
Golf
is not a game of great shots. It’s a game of the most misses. The people who
win make the smallest mistakes.
— Gene Littler,
golfer
Tailpiece
Press release from
the Washington Legal Aid Society:
“A new partner
recently joined the firm of Button, Button, and Button. His name is Zipper. He
replaces two Buttons.”
(Drop by every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for a new Mainly about
Boats column.)
4 comments:
I don't know. At some point isn't the whole idea of a race to see who's really the fastest?
Kinda seems like shooting the best Olympic sprinter in the knee, just because he's fast.
Well, Sixbears, it's hard to disagree with you. It's an interesting point. The trouble, as you know, is that if the best guy wins all the races, the others will soon stop racing, and then he won't be the fastest of anything any more. Should we learn to be better losers, or should the perpetual winner learn to throw a race now and then to encourage the others?
John V.
John, I am with Sixbears here. Racing is racing and the point is to learn and get better.
I learnt and cut big holes in the sails of all the other boats
The problem as I see it, is that a consistent winner may not necessarily be the best sailor.
Seems to me that a handicap system makes a great deal of sense in a mixed-boat fleet. When for example you have a couple Cat 27's, a Contessa 26, a Colgate 26, and maybe a Westsail 28 all jockeying around the cans. Barring some ham-fisted misfortune, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's likely to stroll into first... And who's probably going to be bringing up the rear.
Even in one-design racing I can see a need. That neighbor kid who saved up his paper route money to pick up a waterlogged plywood mirror with blown out sails, cannot realistically compete against new GRP boats with brand new sails.
For better or worse, racing has generally been dominated by those with the money to pour into performance. A handicap system would level the field to allow the best sailors to compete successfully regardless of what they are floating around in.
My $.02 and worth what you paid...
Post a Comment